Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1759877" data-attributes="member: 5171">Bob, a couple of points:1) &quot;Not all weapons are equal&quot; is effectively what I was saying -- only I said it as &quot;efficiency as a ratio of offensive power to training difficulty&quot;.&nbsp; I know you'd like to be the only person with this opinion, because it would let you be righteous and alone, but really, I'm not actually disagreeing with you on the fundamental &quot;this weapon is harder to learn, and thus would not be as popular&quot; principle.2) I believe that you're being somewhat snarky and somewhat rude, and it's interfering with a good conversation, with many good points -- some of them yours.Please quote the text in which I said otherwise.&nbsp; I believe (from just scrolling down and looking at my post) that I said &quot;mass production&quot;.&nbsp; So as much as you love to begin your sentences with &quot;contrary to your opinion&quot; when being rudely righteous to someone... that isn't actually contrary to my opinion.&nbsp; I never said they weren't tried.&nbsp; I said they never saw mass production.&nbsp; You know... because, exactly like you said, someone made a few, tried them out, went &quot;Hm, this is not better than the sword I already had,&quot; and gave up.Again, you're being rude, and it's making it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. Models built to scale with the illustrations in the PHB?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; However, since I use a double weapon, I'm not convinced that other double weapons are impossible to use effectively.&nbsp; They might be a step or two above that goldfish bowl.&nbsp; It'd be a question of getting the right design, which would likely bear about as much resemblence to the PHB illustrations as an actual warhammer bears to the warhammer pictured in the PHB.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="takyris, post: 1759877, member: 5171"] Bob, a couple of points: 1) "Not all weapons are equal" is effectively what I was saying -- only I said it as "efficiency as a ratio of offensive power to training difficulty". I know you'd like to be the only person with this opinion, because it would let you be righteous and alone, but really, I'm not actually disagreeing with you on the fundamental "this weapon is harder to learn, and thus would not be as popular" principle. 2) I believe that you're being somewhat snarky and somewhat rude, and it's interfering with a good conversation, with many good points -- some of them yours. Please quote the text in which I said otherwise. I believe (from just scrolling down and looking at my post) that I said "mass production". So as much as you love to begin your sentences with "contrary to your opinion" when being rudely righteous to someone... that isn't actually contrary to my opinion. I never said they weren't tried. I said they never saw mass production. You know... because, [b]exactly like you said,[/b] someone made a few, tried them out, went "Hm, this is not better than the sword I already had," and gave up. Again, you're being rude, and it's making it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you. Models built to scale with the illustrations in the PHB? Yes. However, since I use a double weapon, I'm not convinced that other double weapons are impossible to use effectively. They might be a step or two above that goldfish bowl. It'd be a question of getting the right design, which would likely bear about as much resemblence to the PHB illustrations as an actual warhammer bears to the warhammer pictured in the PHB. [/QUOTE]

Verification